One thing I have noticed over the years is a growing number of people in the manual labor jobs sector working very hard to live in poverty. With robots taking over these jobs, things will only get worse unless we start thinking more creatively. Universal Basic Income makes sense.
Working poverty is a problem that a "go get a job" mentality entirely ignores and that I think many people just pretend doesn't even exist. A job is not necessarily a ticket out of poverty, neither is working 40 hours per week, or even 80 hours. I hope that as automation continues to eliminate jobs faster and faster, this problem will no longer be able to be ignored.
We can't just tell 3 million unemployed truckers to go get a job, and if we're all competing against each other for the jobs that remain, we'll be bidding down the price of human labor in a race to the bottom.
It just makes no sense for automation to result in people working longer and longer hours for less and less money instead of shorter hours for more money. Basic income brings sanity to technological unemployment.
Brilliant post. Thank you for taking your time to write this. Upvoted, followed and resteemed :)
I'm trying with all my resources available (mostly time) to launch a cryptocurrency that addresses the very issues you have raised.
If you have the time to have a look, I would love to hear your feedback on my sollution. https://vialcoin.com/white-paper/
Peace and love
Thanks! Followed back. I always enjoy hearing about a new crypto implementation of UBI principles. I will be sure to check out your white paper. Good luck on it and thanks for putting your time towards such a goal!
My main focus points are a % fee rather than nominal 0.001*
I love cryptos, but it seems to me that the nominal fee is something that will work out very well for the very rich in the long term, while 90% get's screwed over. We are all 100% human and should pay the same % fee for transactions. All transaction fees go back to the miners. Mining power restricted per wallet to a certain value which increases (small %/ year to keep up with technology advancements)
It's so simple, and could work so well for the most of us who don't do transactions over 1 mil daily (or at all)
I like the flat fee idea, but I think a share needs to go to all users, not just miners. Cicada's solution to this is to make everyone a miner, which I think is pretty clever. How do you like going about universalizing the fee redistribution?
Well, that's what I'm shooting for when final coin will be complete. Imposing some restrictions on the mining power each wallet can dedicate to the network, means it will never become so competitive, mining will be available straight from the wallet(1 click enable).
It also means it will be a true democracy. There can never be a 51% attack, since every miner will have the same mining power.
As a token, it already gains interest of 0.5% / month without any interaction from the user, other than registration. After the first ICO, if I raise enough to secure a full node on Waves, any ViC holder registered will also receive Waves in addition to ViC, and interests might be paid twice a month.
Since there will only be 84 mil coins, I still have to work out some details after the coin is life and not just a token.
The way I see it now, it will offer two sources of income when fully developed :
everybody can mine. Easy. All dedicate same power
register wallet and transfer some ViC to a Waves wallet, and you also get a % paid in WAV.
It's a complex problem, and I'm still placing pieces of the puzzle as I go along, but I'm confident that my vision is fair and my intentions are good, so it will eventually catch on.
Any help is welcome, 100.000 ViC saved for bounties still intact. I welcome suggestions.
The problem with the flat fee becomes apparent when you look at a wealth distribution graph
I doubt the top % will get involved in mining. They will use the network the 90% works to keep alive, to make billion $ worth of transactions for 0.001 BTC each, while most people transact in 100-1000's, and pay 0.001 BTC each.
A % fee makes sense from so many points of view in the long run, and by this I mean really long run, several generations maybe.
Anyway, since the coins is born as a token and because I really like waves so far, transactions for a nominal 0.001 WAV will always be possible. It's only a small step in the right direction.
For sure, automation will take over more and more types of work. Whenever people start preaching me the "Oh, there will always be jobs, they'll just be different" routine, I always point them at this 15-minute documentary... which tends to have a sobering effect:
I was born and raised in Denmark-- now live in the US. My observation on UBI is that it needs to offer a "safety net;" the knowledge that if you DO lose your job, it doesn't mean immediate destitution. No "welfare Cadillacs," in other words...
CGP Grey did such a great job with this video, and I know that so many people found the idea of basic income and came to support it because of this one video, even though he never even mentioned it. Fun fact: he didn't mention it on purpose, because of solution aversion, where people will refuse to believe a problem exists, if the answer appears to conflict with their political views.
A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.“Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one’s belief in the problem. However, we find it does,” said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. “The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem.”
At the time, I was disappointed he didn't mention UBI in the video as a solution, but I think he did the right thing by just focusing on the problem, which really shouldn't be a problem at all. Automation should not be seen as a problem. Machines working for us is the entire point. The problem arises elsewhere, in our requirement for money to survive, and jobs for money.
By the way, in case you missed it, this is a newer video by Kurzgesagt to share with people that also is quite good:
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by scottsantens from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
One thing I have noticed over the years is a growing number of people in the manual labor jobs sector working very hard to live in poverty. With robots taking over these jobs, things will only get worse unless we start thinking more creatively. Universal Basic Income makes sense.
Working poverty is a problem that a "go get a job" mentality entirely ignores and that I think many people just pretend doesn't even exist. A job is not necessarily a ticket out of poverty, neither is working 40 hours per week, or even 80 hours. I hope that as automation continues to eliminate jobs faster and faster, this problem will no longer be able to be ignored.
We can't just tell 3 million unemployed truckers to go get a job, and if we're all competing against each other for the jobs that remain, we'll be bidding down the price of human labor in a race to the bottom.
It just makes no sense for automation to result in people working longer and longer hours for less and less money instead of shorter hours for more money. Basic income brings sanity to technological unemployment.
I continue to read your posts and believe you are helping to prepare Society for the change that is coming
Thank you so much for the kind words. I can only hope we can as a society get to where we need to in time.
This post received a 3.1% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @scottsantens! For more information, click here!
Brilliant post. Thank you for taking your time to write this. Upvoted, followed and resteemed :)
I'm trying with all my resources available (mostly time) to launch a cryptocurrency that addresses the very issues you have raised.
If you have the time to have a look, I would love to hear your feedback on my sollution.
https://vialcoin.com/white-paper/
Peace and love
Thanks! Followed back. I always enjoy hearing about a new crypto implementation of UBI principles. I will be sure to check out your white paper. Good luck on it and thanks for putting your time towards such a goal!
My main focus points are a % fee rather than nominal 0.001*
I love cryptos, but it seems to me that the nominal fee is something that will work out very well for the very rich in the long term, while 90% get's screwed over. We are all 100% human and should pay the same % fee for transactions. All transaction fees go back to the miners. Mining power restricted per wallet to a certain value which increases (small %/ year to keep up with technology advancements)
It's so simple, and could work so well for the most of us who don't do transactions over 1 mil daily (or at all)
I like the flat fee idea, but I think a share needs to go to all users, not just miners. Cicada's solution to this is to make everyone a miner, which I think is pretty clever. How do you like going about universalizing the fee redistribution?
Well, that's what I'm shooting for when final coin will be complete. Imposing some restrictions on the mining power each wallet can dedicate to the network, means it will never become so competitive, mining will be available straight from the wallet(1 click enable).
It also means it will be a true democracy. There can never be a 51% attack, since every miner will have the same mining power.
As a token, it already gains interest of 0.5% / month without any interaction from the user, other than registration. After the first ICO, if I raise enough to secure a full node on Waves, any ViC holder registered will also receive Waves in addition to ViC, and interests might be paid twice a month.
Since there will only be 84 mil coins, I still have to work out some details after the coin is life and not just a token.
The way I see it now, it will offer two sources of income when fully developed :
It's a complex problem, and I'm still placing pieces of the puzzle as I go along, but I'm confident that my vision is fair and my intentions are good, so it will eventually catch on.
Any help is welcome, 100.000 ViC saved for bounties still intact. I welcome suggestions.
The problem with the flat fee becomes apparent when you look at a wealth distribution graph
I doubt the top % will get involved in mining. They will use the network the 90% works to keep alive, to make billion $ worth of transactions for 0.001 BTC each, while most people transact in 100-1000's, and pay 0.001 BTC each.
A % fee makes sense from so many points of view in the long run, and by this I mean really long run, several generations maybe.
Anyway, since the coins is born as a token and because I really like waves so far, transactions for a nominal 0.001 WAV will always be possible. It's only a small step in the right direction.
For sure, automation will take over more and more types of work. Whenever people start preaching me the "Oh, there will always be jobs, they'll just be different" routine, I always point them at this 15-minute documentary... which tends to have a sobering effect:
I was born and raised in Denmark-- now live in the US. My observation on UBI is that it needs to offer a "safety net;" the knowledge that if you DO lose your job, it doesn't mean immediate destitution. No "welfare Cadillacs," in other words...
CGP Grey did such a great job with this video, and I know that so many people found the idea of basic income and came to support it because of this one video, even though he never even mentioned it. Fun fact: he didn't mention it on purpose, because of solution aversion, where people will refuse to believe a problem exists, if the answer appears to conflict with their political views.
At the time, I was disappointed he didn't mention UBI in the video as a solution, but I think he did the right thing by just focusing on the problem, which really shouldn't be a problem at all. Automation should not be seen as a problem. Machines working for us is the entire point. The problem arises elsewhere, in our requirement for money to survive, and jobs for money.
By the way, in case you missed it, this is a newer video by Kurzgesagt to share with people that also is quite good:
I'm a big fan of kurtzgesagt as well :) They focus on facts in a very efficient way.
Sorry for going off-topic, this one is my favorite
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by scottsantens from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
This post has received a 0.63 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @banjo.
Hi! I am a robot. I just upvoted you! I found similar content that readers might be interested in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/the-job-market-a-game-of-_b_7581704.html